Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 8/2/2022 - Memorandum From Megan Keith And Rebecca Everette Re: Southwest Enclave Annexation Lessons Learned Memorandum1 Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning & Development Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax MEMORANDUM Date: July 21, 2022 To: Mayor Arndt and City Councilmembers Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Tyler Marr, Interim Deputy City Manager Caryn Champine, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Paul Sizemore, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services From: Megan Keith, Senior City Planner Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager Re: Southwest Enclave Annexation Lessons Learned Memorandum __________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary This memo has been prepared in response to the April 26th, 2022, City Council work session. During this work session, councilmembers requested a memorandum focusing on lessons learned during the Southwest Enclave Annexation process as context for the ongoing East Mulberry Corridor Plan and potential annexation. Specifically, councilmembers requested an evaluation of the planned phasing/timing of the Southwest Enclave Annexation, its impact on residents and businesses, the projected versus actual costs and revenue, and a discussion of capital projects that have been completed within the Southwest Enclave annexation area. The purpose of this memo is to 1) provide analysis of the public facilities and services that transferred to the City upon annexation of the Enclave and 2) provide interpretation and key learnings for consideration of the Growth Management Area and the East Mulberry Subarea. Sections covered in this memo with corresponding page numbers are shown below. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Background on the Southwest Enclave ................................................................................................ 3 2. Southwest Enclave Annexation Commitments and Implementation Progress ..................................... 6 3. Financial Impact of Annexation within the Southwest Enclave ........................................................... 14 4. Annexation Impacts to Residents and Business Owners ................................................................... 16 5. Lessons Learned and Considerations from the Southwest Enclave Annexation ............................... 17 2 A more thorough planning effort would involve a formal inventory of infrastructure needs, review of land use patterns, and analysis of transportation needs. Budget offer 27.10 in the 2023-2024 budget cycle proposes an assessment of the South College Corridor should the Council wish to resource such an effort. The lessons learned derived from the Southwest Enclave Annexation process are provided in Section 5 of this memo. A high-level summary of the lessons learned are summarized below: Sequence of Planning Efforts: Initiate the planning process before or concurrently to annexation to allow for proactive engagement and development of a shared vision for the area. Communication & Setting Expectations for Community Members: Utilize knowledge gained during Southwest Enclave Annexation to clearly set expectations for residents and businesses impacted by annexation. Delay in Implementation of Infrastructure: o Consider alternative prioritization and alternative funding sources for capital improvements in public infrastructure. o Examine ways to address areas of greater deficiency in street maintenance transportation improvements sooner through different prioritization criteria. o Develop metrics or triggers that need to be met prior to annexation. o Consider commitment to specific timelines for service conversion simultaneously to annexation Revenue and Expense: Ensure phased and/or incremental approaches to funding City services in enclave areas is aligned with availability of funding. 3 1. Background on the Southwest Enclave A. Formation of the Southwest Enclave In November 2001, the annexation of Coyote Ridge Natural Area formed the Southwest Enclave, an area of unincorporated Larimer County surrounded by City limits. Roughly bounded by Harmony Road on the north, Trilby Road on the south, Taft Hill Road on the west and extending a quarter mile east of College Avenue, the enclave is approximately 2.75 square miles in size. Annexed in phases over a period of eight years between 2006 and 2013, the area represents the largest enclave annexation in City history. In comparison, the East Mulberry enclave is approximately 3.89 square miles in size. Figure 1 shows the Southwest Enclave boundaries within the context of Fort Collins. Colorado statutes permit municipalities to annex enclaves after a period of three years. While most annexation of property into Fort Collins is voluntary on the part of property owners in conjunction with planned development, enclave annexations are generally involuntary and initiated by a municipality, as was the case for the Southwest Enclave. The Southwest Enclave has been Management Area (GMA) boundary since the GMA was formalized in 1980. The City and Larimer County jointly adopt GMA boundaries through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) managing growth. Both the IGA and City Plan include policy language enclaves within the GMA as they become eligible. Following City staff evaluation and analysis at the outset of the annexation process, staff recommended that properties fronting South College Avenue should be annexed as expeditiously as possible. Reasons included that the non- residential properties would have a more favorable cost-benefit ratio to the City, allow the creation of an important gateway into Fort Collins, and generate revenues to fund additional costs to future annexation areas. Staff also recommended that budget constraints and the high cost to provide City services to residential portions of the Southwest Enclave necessitated postponing annexation of those areas. Materials from the May 24, 2005, Council Work Session Item stated that Larimer County to annex properties within the GMA, annexation should be completed no later than 2015. These factors contributed to the phased annexation plan. Figure 1: Southwest Enclave Context 4 Large enclave annexations incur various financial costs to the City to provide additional services, infrastructure, and maintenance, while new sources of revenue are generated from property and sales taxes, as well as various user fees. As the Southwest Enclave is primarily residential in character with fewer sales tax receipts, general fund revenues were anticipated to be lower than general fund expenses within the annexation area, especially in the years immediately following annexation. Additional revenue is generated from user fees (e.g., building permits, monthly stormwater fee); however, this revenue supports dedicated programs and infrastructure master plans, often on a broader community-wide basis. Table 1 highlights the largest expenses and funding sources for the initial enclave annexation. Table 1: Largest Expenses and Funding Sources for Initial Enclave Annexation Expense Estimated Cost Primary Funding Source Police $1.7 million (annual) General Fund Electric Service Transfer Fee $2.9 million (over 10 years) Utility Reserves Street Maintenance $142,000 (annual) General Fund In addition to these expenses, the City also began to incorporate capital improvement project planning within the annexation area. Capital improvement projects are funded from a variety of sources but also represent an additional opportunity cost, given that their implementation is often limited by available financial resources. Although the last phase of the Southwest Enclave annexation occurred in late 2013, the transition of certain utility services, fees, and the enforcement of various City codes and standards continues to phase-in or was only recently fully initiated, particularly for the latter phases of the annexation. The staggered nature of certain service transitions and enforcement was a deliberate decision, both as a mitigation measure to address certain stakeholder concerns and a practical reality to slowly enhance City capacity and resources to serve an expanded footprint and population. 5 B. Annexation Timeline & Milestones A detailed map of the Southwest Enclave with annexation phases and dates is provided as Attachment A of this memo. The timeline shown in Figure 2 below depicts the succession of events related to annexation and implementation. Figure 2: Southwest Enclave Annexation Timeline Implementation Notes: Electric utility service conversion completed for Phases 1, 2 and 3 and portions of Phase 4. Majority of electric line undergrounding complete with the exception of smaller areas in Phase 3/4. The phase-in of Stormwater Utility Fees occurred over a five-year period after each phase was annexed, increasing from 20% to 100%. All phases of annexation are now collecting full fees. Nonconforming sign enforcement was phased-in over a seven-year period after each phase was annexed. As new sign permits are submitted, properties are required to redesign their signs to conform with City standards. Phases 2 and 4 feature primarily residential areas where sign code enforcement is less applicable. C. Enclave Characteristics The Southwest Enclave is approximately 2.75 square miles in size, and with the exception of a linear strip of commercial properties paralleling South College Avenue, the area is primarily residential and more rural in character. At the time of annexation, the enclave featured 1,080 housing units, 108 businesses and an estimated population of 3,127. Residential unit densities are much lower than the overall community, featuring predominantly larger estate or agricultural lots and a greater share of properties with horses and other farm animals. The enclave area also features several important natural features and multiple natural areas, including Fossil Creek and Hazaleus Natural Area. The South College Avenue corridor contains a collection of commercial and light industrial properties, many of which were constructed to County standards in the 1960s and 1970s. These properties lack many qualities and infrastructure that would be required by current City development standards, such as sidewalks and street trees, on-site stormwater facilities, or established buffers from nearby natural features. Redevelopment of these properties, when it occurs, provides an opportunity to bring the properties up to current standards. The South College Avenue frontage also features several large and prominent vacant properties that may develop in the future. 6 The 2009 South College Corridor Plan, initiated after the enclave annexation, also identifies the corner of South College Avenue and Carpenter Road as an important gateway to the community with special urban design standards to be implemented in the case of future (re)development at the corner. 2. Southwest Enclave Annexation Commitments and Implementation Progress As previously referenced, the Southwest Enclave annexation spanned a period of multiple years. During this period and spanning into present day, various investments and capital projects for public infrastructure have been completed or planned within the Southwest Enclave. The table below captures provision of services within the Southwest Enclave before and after annexation. Attachment B includes a table perty Owners,which was provided originally as an attachment to the February 22, 2005, Council Work Session Item. This document shows impact to property owners prior to and after annexation categorized by service or fee. Some of the information shown in Attachment B is captured in Table 2 below. Services that have remained the same before and after annexation are not discussed in depth in subsequent sections of this memo. Table 2: Provision of Services Before and After Annexation Provider Before Annexation Provider After Annexation Topics Discussed this memo: Street Improvement, Design, and Maintenance Larimer County Road and Bridge/private City of Fort Collins/private Electric Utility PVREA/Xcel Energy City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility Larimer County City of Fort Collins Trails, Parks, and Natural Areas (no existing County parks) City of Fort Collins Other Topics not covered by this memo*: Planning, Engineering & Building Larimer County City of Fort Collins Non-Conforming Permanent Signs Nuisances/Code Enforcement Larimer County Larimer County City of Fort Collins (zoning) City of Fort Collins (Neighborhood Services) Water Fort Collins/Loveland District Same Sewer South Fort Collins Sanitation District or septic Same Law Enforcement Larimer County Sheriff City of Fort Collins Schools Poudre School District Same Fire Poudre Fire Authority Same Transit Transfort Same *Topics not covered have either remained largely the same before and after annexation or, provision of additional information on these topics did not contribute to lessons learned presented in this memo. 7 A. Street Improvement, Design, and Maintenance Commitment upon Initiation of Annexation A February 22, 2005, City Council Work Session Item stated that virtually all of the local streets within the Southwest Enclave did not meet the recently adopted Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) relative to the street cross-section and level of roadway . Guidance for the maintenance and improvement/acceptance of infrastructure from subdivisions annexed from Larimer County to the City of Fort Collins comes from LCUASS, Appendix G. Appendix G states that roads and streets built to City standards after 1989 would be accepted for full maintenance if they had been maintained and not allowed to deteriorate. Appendix G also states that roads and streets not built to City standards would receive only minor maintenance (grading of gravels, pothole patching of asphalt) to keep streets from being . If at such time the City determines that minor maintenance is no longer adequate to protect public safety, improvements must be done voluntarily by the adjacent property owners, or City Council may impose improvements through the adoption of a Special Improvement District (SID). Adjacent property owners are able to form an SID on a voluntary basis as well. o One such example of an existing improvement district within the Southwest Enclave is the Skyview South General Improvement District (GID). This GID was created by Larimer County in 1997 but annexed into the City during Phase 3 of the annexation process in 2009. The Skyview GID serves to maintain streets within the GID sustainably into the future. o Appendix G of the LCUASS provides comprehensive details about street maintenance and improvement and is included for reference as Attachment C of this memo. Supplemental guidance materials developed during the run up to the Southwest Annexation efforts established that the City would assume the level of maintenance service that the subdivision had received from the County. Prior to 1994, the County had a program to accept residential roads in subdivisions for maintenance. County maintenance consisted of pothole patching, cracksealing and chipseals. The City of Fort Collins assumed this level of maintenance and o Within the County, subdivision plats generally state: Maintenance of all road and common areas with (subdivision name), shall be the responsibility of all property owners within this unit development. Failure to adequately maintain these roads shall result in a lien upon the lots affected. o For subdivisions where Larimer County accepted road maintenance responsibility, they provided pothole patching, crackseal and chipseal, but did not overlay or rebuild roads. In the Southwest Enclave, this same level of County maintenance was taken over by the City within these subdivisions and is termed .Gravel roads would be graded two to three times a year. o Maintenance beyond the aforementioned items would fall to local Associations (HOA) until roads are brought to City standards. The policy of the Streets Maintenance Program (SMP) toward annexed areas is: o Determine their county maintenance status, o Evaluate the condition of the roads, o inform them of City maintenance plans and see if they wish to work toward full acceptance and to detail their options. 8 Annexed subdivisions are able to achieve full acceptance for road maintenance by going through a review process to determine the necessary upgrades to comply with City standards. o Typically, the cost to bring roads to a full acceptance level include curb, gutter, and sidewalks, addressing stormwater detention and water quality, and upgrading the pavement structure. This is often cost prohibitive to the property owners and they often decline this path. If there is no HOA, or if the full maintenance efforts are not embraced, SMP proceeds with a limited maintenance effort to patch, crackseal and chipseal the roads. As noted, property owners can pursue formation of an SID to fund repairs or also consider mechanisms such as the formation of an Urban Renewal Authority to fund infrastructure improvements. Activity Post-Annexation Street Maintenance The following tables summarize subdivision road maintenance status by annexation phase. Additional narrative regarding maintenance history and information is provided as Attachment D to this document. Figure 3 depicts the Southwest Enclave Annexation phases with subdivision names referenced in the subsequent descriptions. Figure 3: Southwest Enclave Annexation Phases with Subdivision Names 9 PHASE 1: East side of College Avenue frontage from Trilby north past Saturn to the north boundary of South 13 Subdivision including the frontage roads, Smokey, and Bueno. PHASE ONE Subdivision / Area Prior County Maintenance Current City Maintenance Notes Kel Mar Strip No No Kel Mar Strip 2nd No No / Partial Limited maintenance on Skyway & Saturn Drives performed in 2016 to 2018 South 13 No No / Partial Limited maintenance Smokey Street performed in 2016 PHASE 2: Fairway Estates Subdivision, east of the Fairway Estates business lots fronting US 287 and South of Harmony Road. PHASE TWO Subdivision / Area Prior County Maintenance Current City Maintenance Notes Fairway Estates (Business Lots) No No / Partial Limited maintenance Palmer Drive & Fairway Lane Access drives performed in 2020 Fairway Estates (West of Mail Creek) Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance. Limited maintenance performed in 2020 Fairway Estates (Third Filing) Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance. Limited maintenance performed in 2020 Pitner Estates No No Condition of some streets pose safety concerns for emergency access PHASE 3: Consists of a large section of county platted lands from Harmony Road west of the BNSF rail line traversing southwest to Trilby Road at Shields Street; the Skyview subdivision butting up to the business frontages of US 287 that had been annexed in the 1980s; the Fossil Creek Meadows subdivision north and south of Fossil Creek Parkway and east of US 287; and two small subdivisions (Lynn Acres and Trilby Heights) north and south of Trilby east of US 287. PHASE THREE Subdivision / Area Prior County Maintenance Current City Maintenance Notes Brookwood Estates Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance, limited maintenance performed 2016 Applewood Estates Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance, limited maintenance performed in 2012 Scenic Knolls Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance, limited maintenance performed in 2012 Fossil Crest Yes Yes City maintenance of Fossil Crest Drive yet to be performed Skyview South No Yes City maintaining snow/bus routes. General Improvement District (GID) established to upgrade roads; accepted by City for limited maintenance. Limited 10 maintenance performed in 2013, 2014, and 2019 Skyview North Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance, limited maintenance performed in 2015 Fossil Creek Meadows Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance. Special assessment collected to perform one-time overlay maintenance, performed in 2018 Lynn Acres Yes Yes Mix of gravel/paved roads. Lynn Dr and Kyle Ave accepted for limited maintenance. Limited maintenance performed in 2019 Trilby Heights Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance. Limited maintenance performed 2022 PHASE 4: Subdivisions in Phase 4 of the Southwest Enclave annexation consist of areas west of Shields and north of Trilby Road. These subdivisions have no paved surfaces, and the City has been maintaining these roads by grading the gravel on a regular basis. PHASE FOUR Phase Four local subdivision streets contain no paved roads or surfaces. City is performing periodic grading. Activity Post-Annexation Transportation Infrastructure No sidewalk improvements have been performed in the Southwest Enclave area through the Pedestrian Needs Assessment project. 2011: Intersection Improvements at Shields and Trilby o Improvements occurred prior to complete annexation o Funded by Larimer County Regional Road Impact Fee under an existing Larimer County contract Improvements in 2022 and Onward: o College and Trilby Intersection Improvements: This project will reconstruct the College Avenue and Trilby Road intersection to improve safety for current and future traffic levels. Construction includes a widening of Trilby as it approaches College Avenue, dual left turn lanes from College onto Trilby, and right turn lanes for all directions of travel. The cost of this project is currently estimated at $16.5M. The majority of this (about $10M) is being funded through grants. General Fund, CCIP, and TCEF comprise of most of the City contributions. Reconstruction of the College/Trilby intersection is expected to begin in late 2022 and continue through 2023. o Trilby Sidewalk Gap Connections Project: Engineering, Natural Areas, Park Planning, and FCMoves is collaborating to construct missing gap connections of sidewalks along the southern side of Trilby Road between College Avenue and Shields Street to provide a continuous pedestrian corridor as well as connections to the existing and future regional trail system. The sidewalk project is separate from the intersection improvements and may be constructed simultaneously or 11 completed once the intersection improvements have been finalized. This project is in the planning phase. Construction may begin in 2024 or 2025. o Southwest Fort Collins Needs Assessment: Budget offer 27.10 was recently submitted to fund an analysis of infrastructure, land use, and transportation needs within the Southwest Enclave Annexation area. This request is motivated by a need to understand how to fully bring remaining infrastructure built under County standards to City standards. Analysis would include an inventory of infrastructure needs, review of existing land use patterns with a 15-minute city analysis, as well as improvement recommendations to build upon existing programs and plans. B. Electric Utility Commitment upon Initiation of Annexation In 2005, it was estimated that 1,000 customers would be transferred from Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association (PVREA) to Fort Collins Electric Utility (FCU) within the Southwest Enclave. 100 customers would be transferred from Xcel to FCU. There is a state law that requires municipal utilities to pay PVREA a service rights fee of 25% of There is no provision in the City code to waive or defer the electric transfer fee, therefore fees are passed on t o Enclave residents voiced strong opposition to absorbing electric transfer fees. o The City committed to using reserve funds to cover all except 5% of mandated service rights fees. o The remaining 20% of the fee would be covered with utility reserve funds, estimated to cost approximately $2.3 million over the 10-year period. A City Council Work Session Item dated June 27, 2006, documents that Light and Power had no plans to underground electric utilities in the Southwest Enclave, but as a response to resident comments, this area would now be included in plans for undergrounding at no cost to property owners. Consideration and timing of this undergrounding will be considered with other priorities Activity Post-Annexation Annexation Phases 1 through 3 have been converted from PVREA to City Light and Power. Portions of Annexation Phase 4 have been converted to City Light and Power, however, there are some remaining portions that have not yet been converted from PVREA to City Light and Power. This includes the parcels south of Fossil Creek. Although all of Phase 3 has been converted to City Light and Power, there are a few small portions of Phase 3 (specifically Kyle Avenue and Lynn Drive) that are still overhead lines. These are planned to be converted to an underground system by the end of 2023. The portions of Phase 4 that have been converted to City Light and Power include the parcels north of Fossil Creek. The lines in this location have been undergrounded. 12 C. Stormwater Utility Commitment upon Initiation of Annexation All residents and properties within the Southwest Enclave became stormwater customers immediately upon annexation. Prior to annexation, Southwest Enclave residents and businesses did not pay utility fees for stormwater. monthly stormwater utility fees are determined based on size of parcel and amount of impervious surfaces prese property owners would expect a stormwater fee of $14.36 a month. Commercial property owners were expected to pay a fee of approximately $134 a month given greater building coverage and larger paved areas. Residents and business owners within the Southwest Enclave requested that stormwater utility fees be phased in over a five-year period. This was applied by charging 20% of the total fee the first year, 40% the next, 60% the third year, and upwards until 100% total fee is collected. This allowed residents and business owners to factor this new cost into their budget. The gradual increase replicated the experience of other City residents who had gradual increases in stormwater fees over the years. Activity Post-Annexation As described above, Stormwater Utility Fees have been phased in over a five-year period after each phase was annexed, increasing from 20% to 100%. All phases of annexation are now collecting full fees. The following projects were completed following annexation within the Southwest Enclave: Fossil Ridge Drive Rundown Repair Mail Creek Stream Rehabilitation Project Stone Creek Master Plan Study Smith Creek & Taft Hill Road Culver Repairs Aaron Drive Stormwater Improvements Fossil Creak Meadows Stormwater Improvement in three phases Stormwater pipe rehabilitations at numerous locations Stormwater improvements associated with development projects D. Trails, Parks, and Natural Areas Commitment upon Initiation of Annexation Prior to initiating annexation, the City made significant investments in Fossil Creek Park, just east of the Southwest Enclave Annexation Area. No additional parks were proposed in the Southwest Enclave. Should new residential development occur following annexation, parkland fees assessed against this development would provide funding for neighborhood parkland acquisition and development. It was stated in a Fort Collins City Council AIS dated October 3, 2006, that given the significant existing residential development within the Southwest Enclave, no parkland fees could be collected upon annexation. Any new neighborhood parks would be financed through new residential development fees. Activity Post-Annexation Although there have been expansions to the trail network within the Southwest Enclave, trail investments were not linked with annexation. 13 Post-annexation, a 1.7-mile stretch of the Fossil Creek Trail was completed in 2018. This final section of multiuse trail completed the east-west connection extending from College Avenue to Shields and continuing to the Cathy Fromme Prairie. Other regionally significant trails in the Southwest Enclave area include the Long View Trail connecting Fort Collins and Loveland. The Long View Trail was also opened in 2018 post- annexation. There are no City of Fort Collins neighborhood parks located within Southwest Enclave boundaries. However, there are multiple natural areas partially located in the phased annexation areas. This includes portions of the Hazaleus Natural Area, the Colina Mariposa Natural Area, the Coyote Ridge Natural Area, and Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. Like trails within the Southwest Enclave area, the acquisition of natural areas was not influenced by annexation but driven by existing regional priorities. 14 3. Financial Impact of Annexation within the Southwest Enclave Early in the Southwest Enclave Annexation evaluation process, City staff prepared a Costs and Revenues Matrix displaying immediate costs and revenues of annexation by service area, as well as costs and revenues 15 years after annexation. This attachment, as it was provided to Council on May 24, 2005, is included as Attachment E. Commitment and Status upon Initiation of Annexation Sales and Use Tax Sales tax is collected on applicable goods sold within Larimer County and in Fort Collins City Limits. Much of the Southwest Enclave is comprised of residential neighborhoods and a small portion of commercial properties along the South College frontage. Table 3: Sales and Use Tax Sales and Use Tax Larimer County Sales Tax Pre-Annexation (2005) City of Fort Collins Sales Tax Post- Annexation 0.8% 3.8% (0.8% County + 3% City sales tax) Larimer County Use Tax Pre-Annexation (2005) City of Fort Collins Use Tax Post-Annexation (applicable to commercial) 3.7% (motor vehicles and building materials) 6.0% (use tax on motor vehicles, building materials, and other tangible goods) Redevelopment Opportunity One-third of the annexation area is comprised of open space that will remain in an undeveloped condition in perpetuity. City staff projected that 62-acres of commercial property were likely to redevelop on South College in the future. However, this was stated with the caveat that small, narrow parcels with multiple owners may have to be consolidated to allow redevelopment at higher intensities. As stated in the February 22, 2005, City Council Work Session AIS, long-term projected revenue was tied to fees collected at the time of building permit issuance (fees for Plan Review and Inspection, Street Oversizing, Capital Expansion, Storm Drainage Basin Expansion and Parkland acquisition). Activity Post-Annexation Table 4 below displays sales tax and use tax collected in Fort Collins Tax Districts 6, 16, 17, and 33 from the period of 2015 through present day, as recorded upon time of collection on May 10, 2022. Tax districts 16 and 17 include some portion of the enclave area, but the large retailers in that area were developed on land that was already a part of the City at the time of the enclave annexation and therefore their development cannot be attributed to annexation. The top five remitters in tax districts 16 and 17 account for approximately 55% and 80%, respectively, of the total sales tax collections for those districts. The tax revenue from those remitters has been excluded from the totals for those districts, thereby providing a more accurate estimate of the amount the Southwest Enclave area contributed to total City collections. Projections for new development and redevelopment in this area at the time of the annexation analysis in 2006 were likely more aggressive than what has been developed since. It is difficult to 15 determine from these data alone what has been the effect of annexation and what can be attributed to other factors, such as general economic conditions. Development timelines are unpredictable, and projects can require years of lead time before construction, when use tax is collected. Multiple development projects are currently in various stages of review and may translate to additional revenue in the coming years. Table 4: Southwest Enclave Annexation Historical Lookback 16 4. Annexation Impacts to Residents and Business Owners As referenced in other sections of this memo, the involuntary Southwest Enclave Annexation was contentious amongst residents and business owners. After City Council affirmed its intent to annex the Southwest Enclave during a work session in 2005, many people living and working in the area continually expressed concerns about the effects of annexation. City Council directed staff to dedicate additional time to engage with residents, property, and business owners to better address their concerns. From January through May 2006, a number of outreach efforts took place, including twelve neighborhood meetings, each focused on a specific area; invitations extended in the form of a letter from the City Manager sent to property owners and tenants alike. Participants were asked to suggest how the City might ease the transition from County to City. A summary of these mitigation measures and the resolution of each is shown in Table 5. The complete summary of mitigation measures suggested by citizens is included as Attachment F. Staff evaluated the mitigation suggestions, and the following were proposed: Table 5: Proposed Mitigation Measures and Solutions Proposed Mitigation Resolution Use reserve funds to cover all except 5% of the 25% mandated service rights fee for current Poudre Valley Rural Electric Authority (PVREA) customers. Ordinance No. 137, Section 5, on October 3, 2006, codified that upon annexation, the service rights fee for all existing PVREA services shall be 5% of the total of all charges for electric power service. Underground electric utilities at no cost to property owners. Not codified Phase in monthly stormwater utility fees over a five-year period, charging 20% of the total fee the first year, then 40, 60, 80 and 100% respectively. Ordinance No. 137 Section 6 presents a table for calculating a stormwater utility fee with the aforementioned multiplication factors in the five- year period post-annexation. Allow barbed wire fences and electrically charged fences used for livestock and pasture management in UE and RUL zones. Codified in Land Use Code Section 3.8.11(B)(1). Change the amortization period from 5 years to 7 years for nonconforming permanent signs located on properties annexed into the City. Ordinance No. 139 amended Land Use Code Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) as stated above on October 3, 2006. Change the licensing requirements for businesses that qualify as secondhand dealers/flea markets, so the owner of the flea market is the licensed secondhand dealer rather than the individual booth operators. Ordinance No. 142 amended Article XI of the Code to add a new definition of flea market and amend the definition of secondhand dealer. This ordinance also amended the Code text regarding license requirements. Specify and define recordkeeping requirements for flea market operators so as not to put an undue burden on individual booth operators, while still addressing and satisfying the intent of Ordinance No. 142 amended text pertaining to flea market owner and operator requirements to document all persons renting a booth in the flea 17 the record requirements of identification of stolen property. market. This list must be kept on the premises for inspection by the City during business hours. Exempt animal shelters and bird rescue and education centers from restrictions on the possession and feeding of wild animals. Ordinance No. 143 amended section 4-73 of the City Code to state that limitation on the possession and feeding of wild and exotic animals shall not apply to the Humane Society. Pursue actions to address specific concerns regarding road funding and neighborhood road connections. Not codified. See above for summary of street maintenance and transportation improvements post-annexation. 5. Lessons Learned and Considerations from the Southwest Enclave Annexation Sequence of Planning Efforts As described within this memo, the Southwest Enclave annexed in four phases over a period of multiple years. The first phase, Phase 1, was formulated to capture the South College frontage area. The rationale for this phase taking place immediately was that it was the most urban in character and because it formed the southernmost entrance to the City. Concurrent to Phase 1 annexation, the South College Corridor Plan was initiated to develop a long-term vision for this area (kicked off in 2007; adopted by City Council in 2009). Due to this sequencing, the majority of the visioning work for South College occurred after it was annexed. Although this did not necessarily hinder the planning effort, sequencing these events differently may have increased buy-in from residents and business owners. If businesses and residents had the ability to co-create and understand the proposed vision for South College frontage before or during annexation, it may have reduced some concerns or confusion that could have been resolved through the corridor planning process. Key Takeaway for East Mulberry Enclave and GMA: Considering the impacts of potential annexation and initiating the planning process before or concurrently to annexation may ease concerns of residents and businesses and allow for proactive engagement. Communications & Setting Expectations for Community Members Although a significant community engagement and outreach effort occurred throughout the annexation process, the complicated nature of the Southwest Enclave Annexation led to ongoing confusion about impacts to properties and businesses. The June 27, 2006, Council Work Session Item states that as meetings occurred and residents expressed concerns, it was evident that misinterpreted or misunderstood. This prompted the City to produce and distribute a document titled (included as Attachment G). Many of the concerns were related to street maintenance and the perception that residential streets would need to be upgraded immediately upon annexation with curb and gutter versus the maintenance procedures previously described. One factor that could have contributed to these misconceptions was that perhaps the communications or materials distributed to residents and businesses did not sufficiently assuage concerns in advance. Key Takeaway for East Mulberry Enclave and GMA: Despite substantial outreach efforts over an extended period, the Southwest Enclave Annexation offers an opportunity to examine communication strategies and timing for property owners and community members alike. In considering lessons learned for the East Mulberry Enclave, there is an opportunity to better understand the impacts to residents and businesses and formulate a communication strategy that can address those at the outset. Proactively communicating impacts and how the City plans to 18 address them may help prevent unanswered concerns that lead to misinterpretation of policies or codes. o Consider ways to reframe communications but also communicate potential benefits businesses and residents may experience upon annexation. o To address future concerns, the City may consider proactive and ongoing communication surrounding street maintenance status and responsibilities for property owners on roads that are not built to LCUASS standards. For example, subdivisions with substandard roadways may have limited ongoing maintenance until they eventually need to be reconstructed to LCUASS standards. There may be additional implications for people purchasing properties in areas where this applies. o This proactive notification and communication will allow residents, neighborhoods to organize and work with the City to develop improvement visions and financing options. Consider designating a department or specific personnel to work with neighborhood organizations or property owners in this capacity. o A maintenance disclosure or some other type of notification could be tied to the title of properties so that when a sale occurs, new owners are aware of street maintenance status and other potential future costs. Delay in Implementation of Infrastructure The final phase of annexation, Phase 4, concluded in 2013. However, portions of Phases 3 and 4 have yet to be converted to City Light and Power nearly a decade later. Although the City did not make commitments related to conversion timeline, it has been difficult to fund infrastructure improvements within enclaves and other annexed areas without associated development. Projected funding for many infrastructure projects is tied to fees collected at the time of building permit issuance. However, due to the primarily residential nature of the Southwest Enclave and the factors limiting larger redevelopment along South College (e.g., infrastructure costs, site constraints, the need for parcel assemblage), there has not been significant redevelopment activity. It is the Ci properties to City Light and Power at the time of development if facilities exist in the area. Due to the lack of existing facilities and because there were no large development projects to fund improvements, infrastructure in the Southwest Enclave has taken longer to progress. Projects in the Southwest Enclave were prioritized based on pragmatic factors such as safety needs, response to development plans, and improving access to parks and schools. Economic development and catalysts for private investment were not necessarily at the forefront of prioritization criteria. City staff are in the process of compiling a 10-year Transportation Capital Improvement Program (TCIP) list of projects that would cover the top transportation capital requirements across the City for the next ten years and beyond. Criteria such as safety, transportation mobility, congestion reduction, and multimodal optimization would be a focus, and priority for newly annexed areas could be added to the criteria and project scoring methodology. Key Takeaways for East Mulberry Enclave and GMA: Council and staff could consider alternative prioritization schemes for capital improvements that are not entirely dependent on development. In some cases, regional infrastructure may be needed to address underlying conditions in addition to development improvements (e.g., stormwater drainage, sidewalk connections). 19 o Catalytic projects or other strategic investments could be prioritized in newly annexed areas to signal City presence and commitment. This could assist in communicating confidence that then spurs private investment and development. o Alternative financing, such as utilizing the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to help finance a capital project over time with tax revenue, can be useful for large- scale transportation capital projects along arterial roadways. In local neighborhoods, a Special Improvement District (SID) can augment the Street Maintenance Program in bringing up local roadways to City standards. o Developing metrics or triggers that need to be met prior to annexation. For example, ensuring the presence of existing electric infrastructure to facilitate conversion to City Light and Power. o Commitment to specific timelines for service conversion/transition could be considered simultaneously to annexation. Particularly if no existing City infrastructure is in close proximity to facilitate a connection, the duration of time needed to establish City services should be taken into consideration. Revenue and Expense Considerations While an annexation of existing businesses will increase the tax receipts for the City, growth projections need to consider the amount of additional revenue expected from new businesses and the anticipated timing of such increases. Additionally, there is the potential for leakage of tax revenues if some of the existing sales base is lost to other jurisdictions. Capital expansion fees play a large part in funding the services to be provided in the annexed area (police, fire, general governmental). The timing of potential developments needs to be accurately and conservatively estimated. There is likely to be a mismatch of when some services need to be provided and when funds to support those services are likely to be generated. Police services are a primary area that will need to be provided early in the annexation process. Provisions for covering these timing mismatches need to be addressed via alternative funding options. A newly annexed enclave will be competing for the available resources and funding with the already existing needs in the City of Fort Collins. Coordinated planning, timing and prioritization with these existing needs will be necessary to meet expectations, objectives, and commitments to all parties. Key Takeaways for East Mulberry Enclave and GMA: o Providing the full suite of City services to an enclave area will require significant resources. The timing and availability of funding may not match the required level of services needed. The potential annexation area needs to be part of the City- wide planning, prioritization and budgeting process, including the efforts to increase and diversify funding sources. Phased and/or incremental approaches will serve to reduce risks and allow for prudent financial commitments. Appendix G – Policy and Standards for Maintenance and Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (City of Fort Collins only) Appendix G Policy and Standards for Maintenance and Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (City of Fort Collins only) Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page G-1 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Page G-2 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted January 17, 2007 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Appendix G – Policy and Standards for Maintenance and Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (City of Fort Collins only) APPENDIX “G” POLICY & STANDARDS for MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT of ANNEXED INFRASTRUCTURE (CITY OF FORT COLLINS ONLY) G.01 City of Fort Collins Policy GM-3.1 “Annexation Policy” of the City Plan Principles and Policies, includes the following general statement for the handling of existing infrastructure constructed in Larimer County and subsequently annexed into the City: Infrastructure standards. Developed land, or areas seeking voluntary annexation, must have their infrastructure improved (e.g., streets, utilities and storm drainage systems) to City standards, or must have a mechanism (e.g. a special improvement district, capital improvements program or other type project) in place to upgrade such services and facilities to City standards before the City will assume full responsibility for future maintenance. This statement requires further clarification for application to infrastructure already meeting City standards as well as infrastructure that does not meet City standards. Therefore, this Appendix is established in order to (1) set the level of maintenance that the City will initially provide on annexed infrastructure and (2) present criteria for determining what improvements have to be done to upgrade the infrastructure to meet City Standards before the City assumes full responsibility for maintenance. G.02 MAINTENANCE CRITERIA G.02.01 INITIAL MAINTENANCE G.02.01.01 STREETS BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS - In August 1989 the Larimer County Commissioners adopted “Urban Area Road Standards” (County Urban Standards) for streets built in the urban growth areas of the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins. These standards were modeled after, and equal to or better than, the City of Fort Collins street standards in effect at that time. Streets developed in the County that were designed and constructed to those standards would be considered “meeting current City standards.” As long as those streets have been maintained and not Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page G-1 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins allowed to deteriorate, the City would take on “full responsibility for future maintenance” to the level that all City streets built to City standards have been maintained. If the streets had not been maintained properly and repairs were necessary, the City would only provide minor maintenance to a level to keep the streets from becoming unsafe. With the improvements in a deteriorated state, the property owners adjacent to these streets would be required to rehabilitate the streets to meet acceptable maintenance standards of the City, at their expense, prior to the City taking on full responsibility for maintenance. G.02.01.02 STREETS NOT BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS - All other streets and roads that have been annexed into the City and not constructed to County Urban Standard nor to City standards, shall be handled in the following way: (a) The City shall provide only minor maintenance to the pavement surfaces to keep them from becoming unsafe. Minor maintenance may consist of periodic grading of gravel surfaces and filling potholes in asphalt surfaces. In addition the City will maintain all culverts and storm drainage pipes that pass under an annexed street. (b) The property owners adjacent to annexed county streets will be responsible for maintenance of curb and gutter and/or borrow ditches and culverts that cross under driveways. G.02.01.03 UTILITIES are generally owned by the City or by publicly regulated utility companies and/or districts. The City or the utility companies/districts shall maintain all utility lines and facilities owned by them. Private utility systems shall be the responsibility of the utility owners and not the City. G.02.01.04 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS - The level of maintenance of storm drainage facilities dedicated to the public, to be assumed by the City, shall be determined by the City. The property owners must first have a study made (at their expense) of the existing drainage system, including everything that contributes runoff to the system, how it functions, and how it conforms or fails to conform to City standards. The study must be performed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. The study results must then be submitted to the City for evaluation. The City will evaluate the system for its adequacy as a functioning system and determine whether it meets city standards. If the system functions adequately, meets City standards and is located in the public right-of-way or located on land owned by the City, the City Page G-2 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted January 17, 2007 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Appendix G – Policy and Standards for Maintenance and Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (City of Fort Collins only) will may accept certain responsibilities for maintenance. If the system does not function or has certain non-functioning parts or does not meet City standards, the City shall evaluate the seriousness of the deficiencies for the health, safety or welfare of the public and take appropriate action. Non-functioning components that cause damage only to the property owners adjoining the system, will be the full responsibility of those property owners to correct or improve as they deem necessary. If the system deficiencies do cause damage to the public other than the adjoining property owners, the City shall take action to the degree necessary to inform the property owners of the problem, indicating their responsibility to correct the problems. G.02.02 FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE When infrastructure meets or has been upgraded to an acceptable level to meet City standards for the City to accept “full responsibility for maintenance,” the City shall maintain such infrastructure to the same level that maintenance is performed on all other public infrastructure in the City. G.03 IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY STANDARDS CRITERIA At such time that the City determines that minor maintenance is no longer adequate to protect public safety, the annexed infrastructure must be upgraded to City standards at no expense to the City. Improvements may be done voluntarily by the adjacent property owners, or the City Council may impose the improvements through the adoption of a Special Improvement District (SID). The SID is still an option available to the property owners on a voluntary basis. The required improvements will be determined by the City specifically for each subdivision depending upon the existing problems that need to be corrected and constraints that may prevent certain improvements from being built. Required improvements to meet City standards at the expense of the property owners may include, but not be limited to, the following: G.03.01 STREETS (a) Improve all streets to standard widths (b) Pavement (upgraded to 20 year design life) (c) Curb and gutter required (if borrow ditches must remain, other measures may be considered to allow runoff to the ditch, such as using a concrete edge to protect the pavement and borrow ditch) (d) Sidewalk - detached from the curb or roadway surface (e) Bridges and box culverts - Upgrade for HS20 design loading and 50 year design life (f) Retaining walls - Not allowed in the public right-of-way (g) Grades - Must meet minimum and maximum criteria (h) Street lights - must be paid for by the property owners and installed Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page G-3 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins by the City (i) Borrow ditches and driveway culverts - If necessary to remain, must be maintained by the adjacent property owners G.03.02 UTILITIES (a) Water lines (1) City or district owned lines, no improvements required (2) Private lines will need to be upgraded to City or District standards for City or district acceptance (b) Sewer lines (1) City or district owned lines, no improvements required (2) Private lines will need to be upgraded to City or District standards for City or district acceptance (3) In areas with no existing sewers (septic systems), sewer lines must be installed in the streets prior to upgrading the street. (c) Manholes and valve boxes - Adjust to grade of finished street surface (d) Other utilities - Upgrade to acceptable standards of the utility prior to paving G.03.03 STORM DRAINAGE (a) The drainage system must be upgraded to a functioning system (b) Borrow ditches - Remove and replace with concrete curb and gutter ( if borrow ditches must remain, the minimum thalweg slope is 2% or if <2%, ditch must be paved with a concrete valley pan to prevent standing water) (c) Borrow ditch side slopes - Must be 4:1 or flatter (d) Driveway culverts - Replace with acceptable City standard pipe (e) Borrow ditches and driveway culverts - If necessary to remain, must be maintained by the adjacent property owners (f) Detention Ponds - Must be certified by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado that it functions in accordance with City standards (g) Culverts under the streets - Corrugated metal, plastic or other material culverts must be resized and replaced with Reinforce Concrete Pipe that meets City standards. (h) Inlets - May need to be replaced or remodeled if they are undersized or do not meet City standards G.03.04 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS (a) Other improvements unique to the location - The City shall be the determining authority on what must be done with unique circumstances not covered in the above criteria. G.04 ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS Page G-4 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted January 17, 2007 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Appendix G – Policy and Standards for Maintenance and Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (City of Fort Collins only) These Criteria shall apply to all annexed streets, including arterial and collector streets, which have been developed in the County. Since arterial and collector streets generally carry more traffic for the public at large than for adjacent properties, they may be maintained by the City to a higher standard until such time as upgrades are constructed. The adjoining property owners shall then be responsible only for the cost to upgrade the equivalent of their local street frontage. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page G-5 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Attachment C City of Fort Collins Street Maintenance Program (SMP) in the Southwest Enclave Annexation This email is an effort to detail the improvements that the City of Fort Collins, Street Maintenance Program (SMP) has undertaken in areas that were annexed to the City starting in 2010 and continuing through 2014 and known as the Southwest Annexation. The Southwest Annexation (SWA) was an effort to bring enclaved county developed subdivision into the City of Fort Collins. This effort was started in 2006 with community outreach and council actions with the first of four phases of these SWA staring in 2010 and proceeding through four phases as shown on the map attached. A general description of the Annexation phases and road maintenance work done in these phases is listed below. Guidance for the maintenance of these Larimer County annexed subdivisions is from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Appendix G: This appendix states that any subdivision when annexed from Larimer County to the City of Fort Collins, the City will assume the level of maintenance service that this subdivision had received from the County. Within the County, subdivisions plat all state: Maintenance of all road and common areas with (subdivision name), shall be the responsibility of all property owners within this unit development. Failure to adequately maintain these roads shall result in a lien upon the lots affected. Subdivision developed within Larimer County, up and until 1990, were allowed to petition the County to take over the maintenance of their roads within the subdivision, if the roads were brought up to a set standard by the owners. Larimer County maintains a list of subdivisions that had been accepted for maintenance. It was based on this list that the City of Fort Collins determined any annexations that would receive the county level of maintenance. Larimer County, in accepted subdivisions for road maintenance, would provide, pothole patching, crackseal efforts and chipseals, but would not overlay or rebuild roads. This level of maintenance has been taken over by the City within these subdivisions and is There is a process to allow annexed subdivision to achieve full acceptance for full road maintenance. This requires that a subdivision goes through a review process to determine what upgrades are necessary to bring their systems to City of Fort Collins standards. Classically this effort is significant and only a few subdivisions have been able to meet these requirements, none of which are in the SWA areas. The policy of the SMP toward annexed areas is first to determine their County maintenance status, second to evaluate the condition of the roads, third to determine if a homeowners group exist that can be approached to inform them of City maintenance plans and see if they wish to work toward full acceptance and to detail their options. Classically the cost to bring roads to a full acceptance level include curb, gutter and sidewalks, dealing with stormwater detention and water quality requirements and upgrading the pavement structure is cost prohibitive to the owner pool and they decline this path. If there is no HOA, group to work with or if the full maintenance efforts are not embraced, SMP proceeds with a limited maintenance effort to patch, crackseal and chipseal the roads. PHASE 1: Consisted of the east side of College Avenue frontage from Trilby north past Saturn to the north boundary of South 13 Subdivision including the frontage roads, Smokey and Bueno. Kel Mar Strip: This County subdivision was a business frontage strip only one lot deep fronting the east side US 287 from Trilby north to Skyway. A service road that is not dedicated ROW was deeded to serve as an access road to these lots. This road was never accepted for maintenance by the County and is not accepted by the City. Both Skyway and Saturn provide access to City subdivisions and thus have full maintenance. Kel Mar Strip 2nd: This County subdivision was a business frontage strip only one lot deep that fronts the east side US 287 from Skyway to Saturn. A road that is dedicated ROW was deeded to serve as an access road to these lots. This road was never accepted for maintenance by the County and is not accepted by the City. Both Skyway and Saturn provide access to City subdivisions and thus have full maintenance. South 13 Subdivision: This was a county subdivision on the east side of US 287 and annexed to the City in 2010. The roads in this subdivision include Smokey, Bueno and the frontage road. All are dedicated ROW but were never accepted for maintenance by the County and is not accepted by the City. Smokey Street traveling east from US 287 provides access to City subdivisions and thus is being maintained as a Limited Maintenance road in 2016. PHASE 2: Consists of the Fairway Estates Subdivision east of the Fairway Estates business Lots fronting US 287 and South of Harmony Road. FAIRWAY ESTATES SUBIVISION: (Business Lots of Phase 1) The east frontage service road attached to the business lots were developed in the County in the 1960 and annexed to the city in the 1980s. This road was never accepted for maintenance by the County and is not accepted by the City. Both Palmer Dr. and Fairway Lane through this area provide access to City Annexed subdivisions and thus have been accepted for Limited Maintenance. FAIRWAY ESTATES SUBIVISION: (Estate Lots of Phase 1 east of the business lots and west of Mail Creek) Both Palmer Dr. and Fairway Lane through this area were overlaid by the owners and accepted for maintenance by the County and thus were accepted for limited maintenance by the City. The county performed a Chipseal on these roads in 2005 and the City followed this with patchwork, crackseal and a slurryseal cap in 2020. FAIRWAY ESTATES SUBIVISION, Third Filing: (Estate Lots of east of Mail Creek) All roads within this platted area were accepted for maintenance by the County and thus were accepted for limited maintenance by the City. The county performed a Chipseal on these roads in 2005 and the City followed this with patchwork, crackseal and a slurryseal cap in 2020. The county performed a Chipseal on these roads in 2005 and the City followed this with patchwork, crackseal and a slurryseal cap in 2020. PITNER ESTATES SUBDIVISION: This subdivision plated a section of Stover traveling north from Harmony between JFK Parkway and Boardwalk Drive. The road is dedicated ROW, but this road was never accepted for maintenance by the County and is not accepted by the City and has not been maintained by the owners. PHASE3: Consist of a large section of County platted lands from Harmony Road west of the BNSF rail line traversing SW to Trilby Road at Shields Street. Phase 3 then traveled to the east side of the rail line to take in the Skyview subdivision butting up to the business frontages of US 287 that had been annexed in the 1980s. Phase 3 also included the Fossil Creek Meadows subdivision north and south of Fossil Creek Parkway and east of US 287, and two small subdivision (Lynn Acres and Trilby Heights) north and south of Trilby east of US 287. BROOKWOOD ESTATES: This subdivision plated Crest Road traveling south from Harmony just west of JFK the BNSF rail line. The road is dedicated ROW in the county and City residential lots were platted along the west side with the Coventry Subdivision. Crest Road was improved with the Coventry development to City standards along the city frontage.The County portion, annexed with Phase 3 was accepted for maintenance by the County and patched and chipsealed by the City in 2015 to its southern terminus. APPLEWOOD ESTATES: This is a sprawling, estate lot subdivision developed in the County in the 70s and 80s.Roads in this area are rural with barrow ditches and large lots with surface ditch irrigation. The Applewood Estates subdivision, annexed with Phase 3 was accepted for maintenance by the County and received a double chipseal by the City in 2012. Significant patching efforts were necessary in 2020 to deal with soft areas of road because of surface irrigation. SENICE KNOLLS: This is a sprawling, estate lot subdivision developed in the County in the 70s and 80s.Roads in this area are rural with barrow ditches and large lots with surface ditch irrigation. The Scenic Knolls subdivision, annexed with Phase 3 was accepted for maintenance by the County and received a double chipseal by the City in 2012. FOSSIL CREST: This subdivision plated a section of Fossil Crest Drive traveling north from Trilby at the top of the hill west of the BNSF rail line. The road is dedicated ROW, and this road was accepted for maintenance by the County but has yet to receive maintenance by the City. SKYVIEW SOUTH: This is a subdivision on either side of Constellation Drive going north from Trilby Road to Skyway Drive and includes a number of looping roads and cul-de-sacs that were originally built in the 60s and 70s as a County subdivision. These roads were never accepted for maintenance by the County, but the county had developed this area as a general improvement district call the Skyview South GID#15. Both Constellation Dr. and Skyway Drive serve as emergency routes for snow clearing and bus routes for school. As such these roads received full maintenance from the City to maintain safe, passible conditions, in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Through efforts by SMP to coordinate with the HOA representative of the Skyview South GID#15, fund from the district have been used to upgrade their roads with overlays so that they have been accepted for Limited Maintenance between 2014 and 2019. SKYVIEW NORTH: This is a subdivision on either side of Venus Avenue going north from Skyway Drive to Crestridge Street and east of the BNSF. The subdivision includes a number of looping roads that butt up to the business lots fronting US 287. This subdivision was originally built in the 70s and 80s as a County subdivision. These roads were accepted for maintenance by the County, the City performed patchwork, crackseal and a chipseal in 2015. FOSSIL CREEK MEADOWS: All roads within this platted were built in the 70s and were accepted for maintenance by the County and thus were accepted for limited maintenance by the City. The county performed a Chipseal on these roads in 1990s, but these roads were approaching the end of their functional life. SMP staff reached out to work with representatives of the HOA to determine the best situation as further chipseals would have limited return. Through a number of meetings with the HOA members it was determined that the HOA would have a special assessment of approximately $2,000 per household to leverage the chipseal monies from the City to allow for a two-inch overlay of all roads which was completed in 2018 and 2019. This effort would provide an estimated 20-additional years of service but would not change the status of these roads from Limited Maintenance. As such the next anticipated treatment would be patch, crackseal and chipseal in the distant future. LYNN ACRES: This subdivision is a mix of paved and unpaved roads originally platted in the County in 60s and built in the 70s. Of the roads, only Lynn Drive and Kyle Avenue are paved and were accepted for maintenance by the County, the City performed patchwork, crackseal and a chipseals in 2019. TRILBY HEIGHTS: This subdivision is a mix of paved and unpaved roads originally platted in the County and built in the 70s. The roads through this area had curb, gutter and sidewalks constructed by the owners to deal with drainage so as to be accepted for maintenance by the County in the 1980s, thus the roads were accepted for limited maintenance by the City. The City is currently performing patchwork and chipseals 2022. PHASE 4: Subdivision in Phase 4 of the SWA consist of areas west of Shields and north of Trilby Road. These subdivisions have no paved surfaces, and the City has been maintaining these roads by grading the gravels on a regular basis.